Oh, well argued Cobber The Hound! Won me right over.........yes, I know it is the lowest form of wit...

The IPCC drew on more than the three articles mentioned. There are 18 articles covered in Table 10.B.1 here http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap10_FGDall.pdf

The estimated range of impacts range from a 2.3% increase for a 1.0 degree increase in temperature to a 4.6% decrease for a 4.9 degree increase in temperature. We have almost reached the 1.0 degree increase, so any further increase in temperature is going to start having negative impacts on the economy.

Luciferase. Atomically, lighter than air methane, is mostly hydrogen atoms with a few carbon atoms added to make the methane moecule.
And that is why it works nearly as well as hydrogen in modern fuel cells, (for a lot less money) and why the exhaust product is mostly water vapor!
Simply put, the Methane to electricity, via the ceramic fuel cell has nearly the highest energy coefficient in the world, at 80%, or four times higher than coal, once thought to be the cheapest energy after hydro!
But even that is now wrong, and both the latter easily beaten by Thorium connected to micro grids.
Which as combination, costs less than half the current wholesale cost of coal fired power.
I realize that some people are welded to coal fired power for personal economic reasons?
But we as an economy, must do vastly better, if only to repatriate our purloined economic sovereignty; and along with that, a high tech manufacture industry, the rest of the world simply can't compete with!
And a set of very palatable economic circumstances, made even more palatable by genuine tax reform, that gives us the lowest real tax rate in the developed world.
None of what I have suggested harms us or our economy, but quite massively supports/grows it!
If massively improved economic circumstances/growth are any part of any problem, I'd like to know what you think they might be?
And where's the actual harm in reducing our carbon production, but particularly, when other nations, put a price on it, and then use that as an excuse to put up tariff barriers on any/all carbon affected trade goods!
And if our action also helps to reduce permafrost/tundra/ice melts, that just can't be seen as a bad thing on so many counts!
So, where's the problem?
Domestic power at least four times cheaper than what we are shelling out now?
Moreover, Thorium needs miners, and power station operators as well!
Rhrosty.

Here is a link to rough calculations of a physicist I respect:

http://www.phys-l.org/archives/2014/10_2014/msg00054.html
Known fossil fuel reserves, if combusted, will put 502 gigatons of CO2 in the environment. Accordingly, that will result in
"--> 252 Gt in the atmosphere
--> 126 ppm on top of what we have now
--> 526 ppm total
--> 0.91 doublings relative to pre-industrial 280 ppm
--> 4.00 °C temperature rise "


His conclusion, "That's so far beyond what is considered "extremely dangerous" that I don't even have a name for it.

Even if we stop burning fuel today, 2 degrees is built in, and, new reserves are discovered every year. Shouldn't we be be trying NOW to do something about this problem?

Another point, if the cost of carbon sequestration is built into fossil fuel power generation, nuclear and renewables are cheaper. Why should we allow an industry to make money without cleaning up as it goes? Perhaps we should levy then clean it up ourselves while leaving the free market to reign. Mmmm, a price on carbon perhaps?

Absolute rubbish, Lucifer, as usual. The current increase in CO2 has not resulted in any warming, so the calculation of temperature rise is nonsense:

“OCTOBER 1 marked an important anniversary: 18 years during which the earth average temperature has remained unchanged.
Satellite data available from 1988 has allowed very precise measurements of global temperatures. These at first confirmed a warming trend.
But the satellite recordings, greeted with such enthusiastic fanfare by the warmist fraternity, have, for the past 18 years, bitten the hand that fed them.
A number of hypotheses have been advanced to explain the inconvenient truth of this data. But NASA has just reported that there is no evidence that the increased heat is hiding in the deep oceans.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/ipcc-calculations-show-global-warming-wont-be-harmful-if-it-resumes/story-e6frg6zo-1227083037892

Lucerface,

The most recent observation based estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is about 1.8 C and transient climate response (TCR) is about 1.3 C. TCR is what should be used for estimating the effect of emissions over 70 years. At present, CO2 concentration is about 400 ppmv. An increase from 400 to 526 ppmv by 2085 (70 years) would give a temp increase of approx  0.5ºC, not  4ºC.

Temp change = 1.3ºC * ln(526/400) / ln(2) = 0.5ºC

Not scary at all. Perhaps more beneficial than harmful.

Have you read Ross McKitricks, paper (see link in first comment on this thread)?